Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1887-07-04
IMPORTED LIQUORS.
Michael Burns Hearing Before the Munic-
ipal Court.
Fine Imposed and Appeal Taken to this
Higher Court.

court Tuesday of last week on the search and
seizure process.
OryiIle d. Baker Esq appeared for the gov
eminent, County Attorney Carleton Decessari'
ly being absent. The respondents counsel was
HIM Heath, Esq and J. II. Potter, Esq. There
was quite a party Of spectators in the room.
Sheriff McFsdden was called, being ques-
TONED by Mr. Heath, counsel for the respon
dent:
"How much liquor did you seize" asked
Mr. Heath.
"Finy-six cases of rum and IL of whiskey
Each case contained IL bottles"
Have you opened any Of the packages"
"No"
Have any of them been opened"
mot that / know of"
"Where did you put these package'F
'In a cate place"
Mr. Heath further questioned the witness
AZ to the place where the liquors were stored
but on instruction from the court the witness
did not answer
you testified that the packages contained
rum and whiskev"
II had no affirming knowledge. | have
reason to believe that they were filled with
rum and whiskey. ! and Marshal Morse
made partial examination Of the shop. The
liquor. were found in the front shop"
Cross Examinatton-The liquors were
marked rum" and "whiskey".
Michael Burns testified bought the liq
unrs of Edward and John Burke in Liverpool,
Eng. Imported them myself; paid for them
and the entire expense of importation. The
cases were entered at the Boston custom
House. went to Portland in Boston & Maine
bonded cars and went there stamped as orig
na imported packages. | personally paid
the duties on these liquors. Drew out 20 Of
these cases first, Is each of whisxey and
rum 80 next, 40 each Of whiskey and rum !;
80 cases of each the last time, making total
of 200 cases. All had been sold except those
seized Sold 1t to private individuals and
anyone who would pay me 81 for case.
had no personal knowledge of the contents !;
never opened a case and never made any
concealment | have made my business pub
lie, and sold all through Maine and even IN
Iowa. received orders by mail. sent out
a card, as follows:
M. BURNS,
Importer, Augusta, Me.
Fine old Irish whiskey and Jamaica rum
sold 10 the original packages. Orders by
mail will receive prompt attention.
Burns exhibited photographic dispatch from
Sullivan, Me-, ordering liquor. None of the
packages were ever opened on his premises
Mr. II Potter then argued the case brief
ly for the respondent There is nothing here
to show that Mr.. Burns ever intended to sell
the liquor other than legally, or in the
original packages, he said. There is no evi
dence to indicate that he sold otherwise than in
the cases as imported The only question
before the court is, had Burns right to sell
the liquors, importing them regularly as he
did II he had he must be discharged. Every
time this question has been before a United
States court 1t has been held that by reason Of
the treaty with England the importer could
legally sell his liquors as long as the packages
we're unbrokeu. Two States, Vermont ard
New Hampshire, Mr.. Potter said, had ar
rived at this conclusion, and the law was
cited TO that effect. The counsel then cited
the case of State VS. Robinson, Maine Reports,
former decision was drawn in 1862 by Justice
Davis. The dictum which is the part cited
10 as follows.
Under the laws of the United States, xcati
liquors imported. may be sold by the importer In
the original packages, without regard to the State
law"
In the Blackwell decision the counsel held
that the implication WAS that the importer
could sell regardless of the State laws
The last case referred to was State VS.
Chandler, SO 1926. This, Mr.. Potter said,
was similar to the case before the court, and
the law court had ordered the liquor returned
TO the claimant within 48 hours, holding that
the importer could sell legally.
Mr.. Heath spoke briefly and described the
latter case Noah Chandler of Houlton, had
imported the liquors and Isold a package
TO a purchaser in Fairfield where it went and
was seized. Chandeliers counsel was Mr.. l..
Powers, who made the brief which WAS presen-
ted by Mr.. Brown. In Penobscot county this
variety of cases had been several times tried,
and Mr.. Powers clients always had won.
MIR. Heath said that Mr.. Chandler sued
the officers of that county for wilful abuse of
their Offices in these cases, AID recovered
damages. If ever there were decisions of law
he thought these were such. He cited the
case Of State VS.. Getchell in this county. He
asked that the respondent be discharged
Mr.. Baker argued the case for the govern
ment. This matter is of great consequences
to the State. he said. He could hardly be-
lieve the legislatures of Maine had passed
law to be prosrituted for base purposes. He
believed az honest prohibitory law had been
passed for an honest purpose. 1t is clear to
sll minds that il this law could be evsded, as
attempted by Mr.. Burns, that prohibition is
failure, and the law a laughing stock. The
government proposes in all honesty to know
whether the statute can be successfully brok-
en-, or easily evaded.
Mr.. Baker urged that the Robinson case
had no bearing on the point in question in the
Burns case,s. the jury had found that the in
tent was to break the packages. In the Sec
ond case the circumstances were similar. an
the Chandler case the point at issue in the
Burns case was not in discussion at all and
thus the decision had no value. Mr. Baker
spoke of the case of Brown VS.. Merrill 10 the
United States Reports and said that whatever
there was in that was dictum and did not go
as far as represented. 1t was the case of
tax on dry goods and had no connection with
liquor. Mr.. Baker urged the Judge to hold
the respondent as, if he was discharged, the
State would have no right of appeal and the
question could not be settled except by be-
ginning sgsin.
Judge Andrews then gave his decision
This case, he said, had assumed q magnitude
much beyond that of ordinary cases. 1t was
rather Unprecedented that couaty attorney
should become a complainant under in
structions from the State authorities. He
believed that sll importers like Mr.. Burns
would be prosecuted when found in the
State. 1t was rather unfortunate that the
prosecuting officer should not be present at
the hearing. He regarded the State vs..
Chandler case as almost precisely like that OF
Burns. He gave pro forma judgement,